The Devil's Point Posted October 4, 2014 Author Report Share Posted October 4, 2014 Three hundred years later and you are saying we are doing badly compared to Panama? Look, we invaded the place, we were the daddy there, but the business model didn't work out. We lost all our money in the first years of the eighteenth century. One fifth of Scotland's money was lost to the Darien speculation and our economy almost collapsed. That's why we had to sell out to England, but it wasn't the terrible deal Burns makes it sound like with the 'parcel of rogues'. I'd guess scottish politicians have taken more decisions per capita than the English or Welsh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaggernaut Posted October 4, 2014 Report Share Posted October 4, 2014 Three hundred years later and you are saying we are doing badly compared to Panama? Look, we invaded the place, we were the daddy there, but the business model didn't work out. We lost all our money in the first years of the eighteenth century. One fifth of Scotland's money was lost to the Darien speculation and our economy almost collapsed. That's why we had to sell out to England, but it wasn't the terrible deal Burns makes it sound like with the 'parcel of rogues'. I'd guess scottish politicians have taken more decisions per capita than the English or Welsh. The "business model" didn't work out because of England putting in place insurmountable obstacles when it came to trading and even communicating with Darien; that is common knowledge, widely accepted by historians. Most of the money that was lost belonged to wealthy individuals who thought they would invest for a handsome return, including many of the Lords and politicians who were then all too ready to accept bribes from London without so much as consulting the people of Scotland; that is also common knowledge and widely accepted by historians. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Devil's Point Posted October 9, 2014 Author Report Share Posted October 9, 2014 TMost of the money that was lost belonged to wealthy individuals Aye, so it didn't matter then. Scotland's bank account was still emptied, despite who lost their money. And that is widely accepted by historians. Not making a point here, but I can't beleive I just read this from historian Allan Burnett in the 'Scots Magazine' - 'The Scots, it was argued, were in fact decended from Scota - a Pharoah's daughter - who eloped with a Greek prince called Galethus. This royal couple, or their decendants, then migrated via Spain and Ireland to Scotland, where in 330BC the first Scottish Monarchy was established under King Fergus MacFerquhard' Wonder how mister Ferguhard got the throne Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.